0
theonlyski

ASRS Report of jump plane running out of gas

Recommended Posts

Sounds like a King Air landed with dry tanks in a soybean field?

Quote

“I Flared and Landed in Rows of Soybeans”

A Pilot conducting skydiving operations in a light twin aircraft learned that a questionable visual inspection of the fuel tanks may not be the best way to confirm fuel gauge readings and could result in an unplanned arrival in the produce aisles.

Lesson 3: Err on the side of caution. When it comes to fuel management, err much further on the side of caution.

■ The incident occurred while supporting skydiving operations. The flight was conducted in VFR conditions within a four mile radius of the airport. The flight to altitude was uneventful and I released all the jumpers at an altitude of 13,000 feet. On the way down, I noticed a fluctuation in engine power from the right engine. Moments later, the power returned. I contacted [my base] and requested the Mechanic to meet me when I got down.

I turned onto a four mile final with the landing gear down and locked, but flaps still up. At that point I saw the right engine FUEL PUMP annunciator light come on. Moments later I felt the plane surge heavily and begin to slow. I powered up both throttle levers to arrest the loss of airspeed. The airplane immediately began to bank right and continued to do so despite counter control input. I determined the right engine was not producing power.

At that point I was well short of the runway at about 500 feet AGL (or less), with the airspeed decreasing to around 80 knots. I immediately brought both throttles back to idle. This stopped the uncommanded turn and I was able to nose over a bit and select an open field east of the runway. I pushed the nose down to maintain my airspeed (still at 80 knots) and seconds later was able to clear some trees and head for a soybean field. As I cleared the trees, I selected the flap lever down, flared, and landed in the rows of soybeans. The roll out was short and surprisingly smooth. While still rolling, I feathered both engines and moved the condition levers to cut off….

I shut everything off, got out, and determined that the airplane had suffered no damage. I also determined that there were only trace amounts of fuel in each tank.

On pre-flight I was told by the pilot operating the plane the day before, that 40 gallons were flown off of the full nacelle tanks which contain 120 gallons total usable fuel. I visually confirmed that the tanks were approximately half-full, although this is very difficult to judge accurately. The fuel gauges in the cockpit also indicated ¾-full tanks on each side. After the off-field landing, I went back into the cockpit to check the fuel gauges again and they both still indicated ¼-full.

In retrospect I can see my efforts to determine the fuel on board before the flight were inadequate, which lead to a fuel starvation event which nearly produced a low altitude VMC roll which would undoubtedly have ended me. I am still uncertain as to the exact discrepancy between perceived fuel and actual fuel onboard and I may never reconcile this. What is certain is that in the future I will err much further on the side of caution, especially when it comes to fuel management.



Moral of the story, stick the tanks.
"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand if in every other way performing otherwise "typical skydiving flight-ops" - why the 4-mile out entry into a pattern/glidepath conducted approach?

Edit to Add: Maybe not the usual "DZ" / Operating in tower-controlled or class-B airspace perhaps?
coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just mystified that an empty King Air cannot produce enough power with one engine to maintain flight. Yes, the pilot idled the left engine to control the turn, but could he have maintained some power to keep the aircraft aloft?

I'm not a pilot, so maybe someone who has knowledge of this aircraft and the engine-out procedures can enlighten me.

top
Jump more, post less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blue line is way above what this poser is suggesting as the speeds flown. This thing reads like some kind of internet spam thing, similar to the "penis size" junk emails I get on a daily basis...

Never mind the fact that the fuel gages read in lbs, and are very accurate (most are ultrasonics) AND YOU CAN'T SEE SHIT LOOKING INTO THE FUEL FILLER INLETS! Any and all know this!!

This sounds like total bs to me from the alleged pilots report...

Where is the "primary first source" ? How about some links?

C

Four mile final???? Four miles out at 1000 AGL? Or four miles out at 3000 AGL? Either way this story is made up....
But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisD

Blue line is way above what this poser is suggesting as the speeds flown. This thing reads like some kind of internet spam thing, similar to the "penis size" junk emails I get on a daily basis...

Never mind the fact that the fuel gages read in lbs, and are very accurate (most are ultrasonics) AND YOU CAN'T SEE SHIT LOOKING INTO THE FUEL FILLER INLETS! Any and all know this!!

This sounds like total bs to me from the alleged pilots report...

Where is the "primary first source" ? How about some links?

C

Four mile final???? Four miles out at 1000 AGL? Or four miles out at 3000 AGL? Either way this story is made up....



I was under the impression most twin engine planes could fly on one engine; otherwise the loss of a single engine would be catastrophic and thus carry twice the risk of a single engine counterpart. You'd have to trim like nuts, but can a KA not fly with one out??? Any aviators out there able to weigh in? I took a few classes but a pilot I am not.
You are not the contents of your wallet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theonlyski



Thanks for that:)
This quote from the author of the "story" :

"...questionable visual inspection of the fuel tanks may not be the best way to confirm fuel gauge readings and could result in an unplanned arrival in the produce aisles."


Tells me that the author has a sense of humor :S.

The author also dosen't point to a first source either...

Sometimes some idiots just don't pay attention, the rest of this narration is just smoke and mirrors and derogatory twords the many anal retentive types that fly skydiving operations on a regular basis....

All of the bs about speeds and distances and power setting and turns is just that...: just bs....

They ran out of gas....I'd fire them for shure...


Thanks for brininging this story to my attention SKI ;)

It really does illustrate some of the dum asses in
government that at some point I will definatly be in touch with in the future!



and yes Virginia some twins don't fly well on a single engine depending upon model, make, and configuration, (load) etc....

There is really only one thing you can say to a pilot that runs out of fuel,....


"Nice knowing ya..."






And here is one for every Beachcraft / Raytheon lover out there....some of you single operators should be running two up front, what with some models running up to 14 separate tanks....think about that..... there is a reason a "Super Beaver" is safer....
But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss


Thanks for the nightmares I'm going to have tonight.

Mandatory time in a tailwheel I'd say...

More crap to think about, about basic skills and the lack thereof....

Ten hours in high winds in any citabria/ Decath would have cured that ass's heavy foot and lack of basic rudder skills.

Something for all of those 250 hour wonders out there that can't master their rudder cause renting a conventional is beneath them...


King Air's and MU2's two pieces of shit that you should know your pilots experience and qualifications before you get into either of them....Flying fucking coffins if you ask me....both have the safety record of a B-17, (in 1943).
But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisD


Thanks for the nightmares I'm going to have tonight.

Mandatory time in a tailwheel I'd say...

More crap to think about, about basic skills and the lack thereof....

Ten hours in high winds in any citabria/ Decath would have cured that ass's heavy foot and lack of basic rudder skills.

Something for all of those 250 hour wonders out there that can't master their rudder cause renting a conventional is beneath them...


King Air's and MU2's two pieces of shit that you should know your pilots experience and qualifications before you get into either of them....Flying fucking coffins if you ask me....both have the safety record of a B-17, (in 1943).

King Airs are the easiest multi engine turboprop to fly that have ever been built and have the safety record that comes with that ease of flight. I believe only Pilatus PC12s have a lower per flight hour accident/fatality rate.

The MU2 on the other hand is Japan's answer to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Never mind the fact that the fuel gages read in lbs, and are very accurate (most are ultrasonics) AND YOU CAN'T SEE SHIT LOOKING INTO THE FUEL FILLER INLETS! Any and all know this!!



The older model King Airs (As, Bs) use gauges for the nacelles that are scaled in quarter increments. E, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and FULL. 2 gauges per side, one for nacelle and one for wing.
The fuel quantity sending units are resistance based, float operated units that can and do go out of calibration easily.
Now if this were a C model it would have one gauge for each side with a switch to select either the nacelle quantity or total quantity for the side. (Wing and nacelle together). If the switch were set to total the pilot could have mistaken it for nacelle quantity thought he he enough in the nacelles when a fair quantity was actually in the wings. Without transferring it the nacelles would have been run dry.
And you can see quite easily into the nacelle tank of a King Air thru the filler. You would need a flashlight, but you can see the Boost Pump at the bottom when the tank is full.
The one thing with a King Air is that there is only one fuel pick up in the nacelle tank, and that is the Boost Pump which is centered in the middle of the tank (just forward of the gear well). If the decent is steep enough and the fuel level low enough the fuel will slosh forward making the pump then cavitate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
totter

Quote

Never mind the fact that the fuel gages read in lbs, and are very accurate (most are ultrasonics) AND YOU CAN'T SEE SHIT LOOKING INTO THE FUEL FILLER INLETS! Any and all know this!!



The older model King Airs (As, Bs) use gauges for the nacelles that are scaled in quarter increments. E, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and FULL. 2 gauges per side, one for nacelle and one for wing.
The fuel quantity sending units are resistance based, float operated units that can and do go out of calibration easily.
Now if this were a C model it would have one gauge for each side with a switch to select either the nacelle quantity or total quantity for the side. (Wing and nacelle together). If the switch were set to total the pilot could have mistaken it for nacelle quantity thought he he enough in the nacelles when a fair quantity was actually in the wings. Without transferring it the nacelles would have been run dry.
And you can see quite easily into the nacelle tank of a King Air thru the filler. You would need a flashlight, but you can see the Boost Pump at the bottom when the tank is full.
The one thing with a King Air is that there is only one fuel pick up in the nacelle tank, and that is the Boost Pump which is centered in the middle of the tank (just forward of the gear well). If the decent is steep enough and the fuel level low enough the fuel will slosh forward making the pump then cavitate.



I want you to read the following from the FM:

"a capacitance
fuel gaging system on each side which provides
separate quantity readings for each main and
auxiliary fuel system;"

The wing top filler inlets drain to underneath tanks...YOU CAN"T SEE SHIT looking in them.
The "nacelle" tanks don't have fillers....some types have Aux tanks with fillers, you can't see shit into them either....Even in the older pre 100/200 models, fuel transfer is mostly automatic....

Their are no "fuel pump" indicator lights, there are "fuel pressure" idiot lights.

I really don't know what the fuck you are speaking about, my PT 6's say you should just go back to playing with your joy stick and leave the flying to real people...


My point about skydivers being sheep and thinking that every dummy pilot is the "best" still stands....

You have every right to ask how much recent tail wheel time your pilot has, and if they have none then I would certainly think twice before getting into one of the hawker products with the worst safety record of any twin short of the original 310.

And by the way you fucking idiot the boost pumps are shaft driven...that's off the engine shaft in case your version of "Flight Stimulator" didn't tell you that....


C

There is an aux electric pump that is under the pilots control, It was not mentioned if the pilot turned it on or not as he / she ran out???? The aux fuel pump is not normally used BTW.

To run out of fuel in any King Air is like holding up a sign, no perhaps a billboard that you are quite possibly one of the stupidest people on the planet....never mind the fact that you just also admitted that you took to the air without following the manufacturers advice and regulations. Nevermind busting the FAR's. And this is even before you start the thing spinnin... most all min take off fuel requirments leave yo with about 30 min of fuel, good to the last drop...Even if you fuck the regs...and common sense.

Now if your talking about the C90 everything, well mostly nothing above is true, the C90 has nacelle filler and top wing tank fillers, electric pumps, and all the other stuff you mention. Most all float gauges per the insurance company's and 135/121 have been modified... So what's your point??? Even all of the older models came with more reliable gauges. If I remember correctly the floats read in lbs or gallons, while the electronic ones have always read in lbs. And that is "Total" fuel BTW. So how do you stick any one of the ten tanks which have always been standard in King Airs???? And while I'm at it the gauges read to what the selector switch is set to and ya there are two of them: one for the left and one for the right side.

The pilot forgot???

You still can't stick the tanks because of the slope!!

And for the older models most turn on the boost pumps during TO/land/ and Hot weather just so nothing cavitates! And BTW the whole cavitation thing,...you just held up a sign as well....:S So yo want to raise the issue that the aircraft has some issues and it was not the pilots stupididty???
You are way off base.
But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisD

***

Quote

Never mind the fact that the fuel gages read in lbs, and are very accurate (most are ultrasonics) AND YOU CAN'T SEE SHIT LOOKING INTO THE FUEL FILLER INLETS! Any and all know this!!



The older model King Airs (As, Bs) use gauges for the nacelles that are scaled in quarter increments. E, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and FULL. 2 gauges per side, one for nacelle and one for wing.
The fuel quantity sending units are resistance based, float operated units that can and do go out of calibration easily.
Now if this were a C model it would have one gauge for each side with a switch to select either the nacelle quantity or total quantity for the side. (Wing and nacelle together). If the switch were set to total the pilot could have mistaken it for nacelle quantity thought he he enough in the nacelles when a fair quantity was actually in the wings. Without transferring it the nacelles would have been run dry.
And you can see quite easily into the nacelle tank of a King Air thru the filler. You would need a flashlight, but you can see the Boost Pump at the bottom when the tank is full.
The one thing with a King Air is that there is only one fuel pick up in the nacelle tank, and that is the Boost Pump which is centered in the middle of the tank (just forward of the gear well). If the decent is steep enough and the fuel level low enough the fuel will slosh forward making the pump then cavitate.



I want you to read the following from the FM:

"a capacitance
fuel gaging system on each side which provides
separate quantity readings for each main and
auxiliary fuel system;"

The wing top filler inlets drain to underneath tanks...YOU CAN"T SEE SHIT looking in them.
The "nacelle" tanks don't have fillers....some types have Aux tanks with fillers, you can't see shit into them either....Even in the older pre 100/200 models, fuel transfer is mostly automatic....

Their are no "fuel pump" indicator lights, there are "fuel pressure" idiot lights.

I really don't know what the fuck you are speaking about, my PT 6's say you should just go back to playing with your joy stick and leave the flying to real people...


My point about skydivers being sheep and thinking that every dummy pilot is the "best" still stands....

You have every right to ask how much recent tail wheel time your pilot has, and if they have none then I would certainly think twice before getting into one of the hawker products with the worst safety record of any twin short of the original 310.

Compared to what? Get the actual insurance (Conklin and DeDecker Associates) safety statistics and I think you'll find that the King Airs have the second best safety record. Just off the top of my head, MU2s, Commanders, Cheyennes, and Conquests all have much higher injury/fatality rates. When you factor in that King Airs are more likely to be used for skydiving and EMS I would say it speaks volumes about how easy the aircraft are to operate. Those two operations utilize the lowest time pilots and fly in the worst weather and locations respectively.

And by the way you fucking idiot the boost pumps are shaft driven...that's off the engine shaft in case your version of "Flight Stimulator" didn't tell you that....

In some installations that is true, but in others all four pumps downstream of the engine driven high pressure pump are electrically driven, usually dual fed and or on the fuel panel "hot battery bus" items.


C

There is an aux electric pump that is under the pilots control, It was not mentioned if the pilot turned it on or not as he / she ran out???? The aux fuel pump is not normally used BTW.

Again, in some King Airs turning on the boost pumps immediately after start is a checklist item as all the pumps are electric. I flew a C90 with that configuration.

To run out of fuel in any King Air is like holding up a sign, no perhaps a billboard that you are quite possibly one of the stupidest people on the planet....never mind the fact that you just also admitted that you took to the air without following the manufacturers advice and regulations. Nevermind busting the FAR's. And this is even before you start the thing spinnin... most all min take off fuel requirments leave yo with about 30 min of fuel, good to the last drop...Even if you fuck the regs...and common sense.

Again, the takeoff fuel requirements vary from aircraft to aircraft. Some King Airs have a yellow band at the bottom of the fuel indicators that goes from empty to 265 pounds, and a placard (along with a published limitation) that makes takeoff with less than that contrary to the AFM. If you're climbing to any altitude that's at least 45 minutes of fuel in every 90 and 100 model I have ever flown, especially with a quick climb and descent at idle.

Now if your talking about the C90 everything, well mostly nothing above is true, the C90 has nacelle filler and top wing tank fillers, electric pumps, and all the other stuff you mention. Most all float gauges per the insurance company's and 135/121 have been modified... So what's your point??? Even all of the older models came with more reliable gauges. If I remember correctly the floats read in lbs or gallons, while the electronic ones have always read in lbs. And that is "Total" fuel BTW. So how do you stick any one of the ten tanks which have always been standard in King Airs???? And while I'm at it the gauges read to what the selector switch is set to and ya there are two of them: one for the left and one for the right side.

Not all are Total Fuel. Some are, but others are Main and Aux, or Total and Nacelle depending on installation and switches. Bear in mind that a King Air 90 might refer to an A90, B90, C90, C90A, C90B, C90GT, C90GTi, E90, or F90, and the fuel system may be more similar to those of an A100, 200, or 300 depending on the year and serial number it was produced. They may also feed many variants of the PT-6 although the -21 and -28 are most common.

The pilot forgot???

You still can't stick the tanks because of the slope!!

And for the older models most turn on the boost pumps during TO/land/ and Hot weather just so nothing cavitates! And BTW the whole cavitation thing,...you just held up a sign as well....:S So yo want to raise the issue that the aircraft has some issues and it was not the pilots stupididty???
You are way off base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

nacelle" tanks don't have fillers



So all those years that I was fueling Fayard's Triple 9G what was I sticking in that hole in the top of the nacelle? This was a C90. But you admitted that the C has a nacelle filler.
All the times that I fueled and worked on N2000E, Skydive Crosskeys one King Air, an A90, why was I changing the electric boost pump in the bottom of the nacelle when it would fail? Yes, Boost Pump. And fueling it thru that hole in the top of the nacelle.
Or Delmarva's B90, what was that hole for on top of the nacelle?

And, if you operate a PT6A for more than 10 hours without the Boost Pump turned on then the Engine Driven Fuel Pump, which is the one with the shaft, needs to be overhauled. Which is why the boost pumps are always on. (I am not referring to the High Pressure Fuel Pump that can be, but is not always installed).

Ah, where did I say 100/200 series? Where in the story did it say 100/200 series? It didn't even mention the aircraft type.
I've never piloted or worked on an E, F, 100, 200, 300 or 350 series King Air, so I never mentioned them.

If this aircraft was an A, B or C then my statements hold true.

I do like how you edited your post to remove the passage that I quoted.
See ya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the well thought out responses.

I thought we were going to have a discussion about the fuel remaining in the leading edge tanks/ wing tanks if the auto system fails or the pilot forgets to use the transfer switch, basically gravity fed,...how much fuel is remaining. This would have been the appropriate response to counter any King Air fuel out lack of dilligance on the pilots part.
Whilst the gauges still reading fuel remaining...

I am also glad that you guys pointed out that the original artacal is so poorly written that it doesn't mention which model. Because there are very signifigiant differences between a 350 and a C-12 from 1961. I didn't take the time to point that out either. I am glad that yo took the time to point out that you can run with a defective engine drivin pump,... running ten hours with the idiot light on, but why run with the light on at all???

One of those differences is the syncro features. This could have accounted for some yaw changes as well, depending upon the model. You guys forget about that as well??

So basically if the pre-flight was followed this would not have happened???? 45 min of fuel??? I give it less....

So lets argue about the stupidity of low fuel flight operations, basically not doing a preflight as well, so that we can run the aircraft at or near minimum wt. so we can operate more "efficiently"? With an aircraft that can gross out at MAX 15,000 lbs???? ya that makes a lot of sense, run constantly at min fuel to save a couple of bucks....any body know places where this is the norm???

Another nail in this fellows carrreer coffin?

And considering the large number of those that are racking up hours,...BECAUSE they will work for nothing the skydiving record sucks. Allthough I will readaly admit because of the popularity of this aircraft, there are lots of them in all of it's various configurations, because of this they do get into trouble more often by numbers, because there are more of them.

But this is my point. To bring attention once again that we have a large number of inexperienced pilots, racking up hours, working for nothing to do so....


Skydivers have a right to ask that their pilots follow the book!

And I have a deep concern that the "older" pilots out there don't have the currency because most of them are head cases :), they have a tail wheel endorsement from the dark ages, they are not current in stall spin / slow flight at or near gross and every other idiot skydiver I know of just blindly like sheep gets on the aircraft because his or her pilot is the "best." ?????? :S:S:S

They are not!

Currency makes good pilots.

Sending all of your pilots to something like "Flight Safety" each year makes the best pilots. (Now lets talk about why money, and everyones immediate response is that they " can't afford currency training is an issue?)

Having recent conventional time is important! but does anyone actually do this???


And while I'm at it we have a population of "day fly'rs," a day flyier is a pilot that only sees sunshine and has the pattern at their respective field memorized. We have a population of head case King Air pilots that are not well rounded, with hundreds of hours in these twins that can't handle proper EP's cause they don't get the opportunity to practice them because of economics.


Recencey of practice, knowing what model we are speaking about before "flame on" would have been nice? The devil is in the details, which is why I wrote what I did.

C

And I actually don't fully understand why we are having this little flying lesson. I took advantage of the lack of detail to point out some areas of confusion in the poorly written NASA / Moffet field news flash, god knows they are trying...considering the fact that they start off with the news flash at the top of the paper with 35 /40 pilots run our of fuel each year??? (That's worse than if they were driving their own autos???) But lets talk about how the FAA and NTSB, and Homeland, and NASA, and ten other agencies are fighting to justify their exsistance to the detrement of the wings programs and real recurrency training????


I do forget sometimes that when I hit the reply/ quote buttons and the fact a reply is frequently just below another persons responses and comments,...that that person infer's that I am speaking dierectly to them,...sometimes I'm making general comments and not always referring to the comments that are immediately above, if this is what has happened ,, i'm sorry....:)

But my points still remain, we have to many "young bucks" flying complex aircraft doing things that they shouldn't, and we have to many experience pilots doing things that their skills levels have deteroriated and they don't know it, or won't accept this.


And we have way too many skydivers that think their pilot is the best, that don't have a clue and won't question their local policies....

and this is unacceptable because a little peer pressure and questioning can go a long way....

This incident could just have happened at 100 feet with a full load....What would the outcome have looked like then????
But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0